Jump to content

Hot air balloon glow photography with film


williamtk1974

Recommended Posts

Hello everyone,

 

Hopefully this is the correct spot for a question like this.

 

Next month, a hot air balloon festival is taking place in my city at one of our parks by the river. From what I've read so far, they're not publicizing any early morning launches or flights, but are highlighting the 4pm til 11pm timeframe, with emphasis on the balloon glow that will take place as the sun's going down.

 

My night photo experience is limited. I've done a fireworks show with some success, but the balloon glow thing is new. I have a pretty varied assortment of equipment, so I'm not worried about not having something useful, but I don't know much about the best color film for low light and after dark.

 

The problem is figuring out what film to use. Should I go straight to an ISO 800 color film, or use ISO 400 and push it to 800? Or neither? I wish I thought Ektar 100 would work because its color can be so rich, but it can be so picky in low light. I really want to get the best colors and keep the sky dark without having excessive grain.

 

From what I've read so far, it might be best to take my Nikon F90X camera and use a zoom lens. I have a Sigma 28-70mm 1:3.5-4.5 that's been good for alot of other projects. I also have an AF-Nikkor 1:1.8 50mm, and my grandfather's vintage Nikon F with lenses ranging from 35mm 1:2.8 to 50mm 1:1.4 and 1.8, to 135mm 1:2.8 and a Vivitar 85-205 1:3.8.

 

Now, in the event that there is an early morning launch and flight, would Ektar work for that?

 

Thank you,

-William

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I haven't thought about balloon glow, but suspect that a lot would be in IR.

 

Otherwise, I know that film cameras are a lot of fun, but I suspect that for low-light

in color DSLR are the best choice.

 

I'm surprised that more people don't seem to know about that type of photo subject. As the sun's going down, the pilots will inflate their balloons and then fire the burners to make the balloons glow from within. It's a colorful display. I lied a bit in my OP... I actually tried to do this at a similar festival a couple of years ago, and sent my film off to The Darkroom thanks to a friend's recommendation. The USPS lost my film, so I have no idea how any of it turned out. I would like to think some of the pics were good. To my mind, the challenge is accurately capturing the colors of the glowing balloons while maintaining the contrast of the dark sky.

 

A DSLR might be the best choice because it allows for some experimentation that film won't, but I think a truly good shot looks best on film. I know this can be done; it's just a matter of how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly the kind of image you're chasing, and it sounds like a lot of fun. If we assume the grain of ISO 800 film will be OK with you, then you should be able to get some decent shots. Area shots from a distance or with a short focal length lens will be less prone to motion blur than telephoto. If it were me, I'd stand off a little bit, use a +/- normal lens at a medium-large aperture, and shoot as fast an exposure as possible. It might be worth some experimenting to see what kind of exposure values you'll need for the balloons with internal flame. It shouldn't be too big a deal to rig a mockup, and even experiment with a DSLR to determine initial values. I expect it will be difficult to determine your initial values on-site, as the last of the sunset and early twilight on the balloons will skew the exposure readings versus with internal flame as the primary light source. I also note the extreme variation in exposure values from the bright, raw flame at the base of the balloon to the upper half, being 4+ stops, so you'll have to determine your best value and shoot for that. I wish you luck and look forward to seeing your results.

 

Addendum: Looking at various examples online, it appears a reasonable exposure value would be one which correctly exposes the ground equipment and people on the ground around the balloons when lit only by the burners after full dark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really want to get the best colors and keep the sky dark without having excessive grain.

Yeah. Good luck with that shooting 35mm film.

A DSLR might be the best choice...

A definite +1 to that!

But you don't even need a DSLR to improve on what 35mm colour film at 800 ISO will get you. Almost any recent digital camera with 12 Megapixels or more will do better.

 

Truth is that at an event like this, you're going to be surrounded by dozens of other amateur shooters using digital cameras, and almost all of them are going to get clearer shots with better colour than your 800 ISO print film will give.

Edited by rodeo_joe|1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the whole digital thing goes, I'm just not quite ready to go there. One thing that's put me off is knowing that the image sensor in the average P&S and most DSLRs is not as big as a 35mm exposure. So, they can talk about all the mega-pixels they want, but if the shot is taking place on what amounts to a 110 negative, all those mega-pixels are only going to be good for so much. I know there are exceptions to this and that the technology should improve. But that's the thing... There are people out there who coughed up quite a sum to get a good DSLR a few years ago, there was alot of hoopla about how great they were, and now they've been superseded by something better. It's like buying a computer. You need it and it's going to cost more than you've paid for a running car in the past, and it'll be superseded in two or three years and no longer able to receive updates in six to eight years, and useless at around ten years...

 

With a different size of image sensor comes different behavior from existing lenses. Is a 50mm prime lens still considered the best of the prime lenses?

 

Last time I went to an event like this, my SO was using her iPhone to take pics. It may have been the 8 Plus she has now. She got some nice-looking pictures, but their weaknesses began to show when viewed on something other than the iPhone's screen.

 

Now, I promise I'm not trying to turn this into an anti-digital rant. At some point, I'll probably take the plunge. But right now, the only advantage I see is that a digital user doesn't have to worry about getting film and having it developed. People were able to take film-based photos of images like the ones I've described before digital photography was a thing, and we liked what they got.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly the kind of image you're chasing, and it sounds like a lot of fun. If we assume the grain of ISO 800 film will be OK with you, then you should be able to get some decent shots. Area shots from a distance or with a short focal length lens will be less prone to motion blur than telephoto. If it were me, I'd stand off a little bit, use a +/- normal lens at a medium-large aperture, and shoot as fast an exposure as possible. It might be worth some experimenting to see what kind of exposure values you'll need for the balloons with internal flame. It shouldn't be too big a deal to rig a mockup, and even experiment with a DSLR to determine initial values. I expect it will be difficult to determine your initial values on-site, as the last of the sunset and early twilight on the balloons will skew the exposure readings versus with internal flame as the primary light source. I also note the extreme variation in exposure values from the bright, raw flame at the base of the balloon to the upper half, being 4+ stops, so you'll have to determine your best value and shoot for that. I wish you luck and look forward to seeing your results.

 

Addendum: Looking at various examples online, it appears a reasonable exposure value would be one which correctly exposes the ground equipment and people on the ground around the balloons when lit only by the burners after full dark.

 

Would using 800 film pulled to 400 work well? Alot of people talk like 800 Portra can be used that way. Now I'm wondering if it could be pulled to 200 without overexposing. I've also seen Lomography 800, and wondered what it was like. Who makes it? For awhile there, that brand got associated with the sort of hipster types who would spend $250 on a Holga camera and designer duct tape to light seal it...

 

I may order some 800 Portra and get some low light practice between now and the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, william, but your understanding of digital is very weak.

 

There are lots of "full frame" sensors. Constant improvement will always be the case for ALL technology. If you get a camera that does what you want, you can easily ignore the constant upgrade process until you want to get back in. The fact another camera has been introduced does nothing to negate the one you already own. There are HUGE advantages to digital beyond simply not having to buy film. The fact you are unaware of them is not a condemnation of digital, nor an argument for the superiority of film. You may have noticed that there are very few photographers, professional and amateur, who have made the switch to digital long ago, and who would never go back to film. Film has become an "artistic choice" that some still make, but I know of almost no one who doesn't think that digital is empowering and liberating for their photography.

 

For your problem with the balloon photography, my advice is also to think digital as a real solution to the issues you are concerned about. I shot film professionally years ago, so I'm not without perspective, and I know that getting the shots I think you are after is far more likely with a good digital camera system than with film. And shooting at high ISO values (likely necessary for what you want) is many, many times better with modern digital systems than with film. Re-think your "objections" to going digital.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, william, but your understanding of digital is very weak.

 

There are lots of "full frame" sensors. Constant improvement will always be the case for ALL technology. If you get a camera that does what you want, you can easily ignore the constant upgrade process until you want to get back in. The fact another camera has been introduced does nothing to negate the one you already own. There are HUGE advantages to digital beyond simply not having to buy film. The fact you are unaware of them is not a condemnation of digital, nor an argument for the superiority of film. You may have noticed that there are very few photographers, professional and amateur, who have made the switch to digital long ago, and who would never go back to film. Film has become an "artistic choice" that some still make, but I know of almost no one who doesn't think that digital is empowering and liberating for their photography.

 

For your problem with the balloon photography, my advice is also to think digital as a real solution to the issues you are concerned about. I shot film professionally years ago, so I'm not without perspective, and I know that getting the shots I think you are after is far more likely with a good digital camera system than with film. And shooting at high ISO values (likely necessary for what you want) is many, many times better with modern digital systems than with film. Re-think your "objections" to going digital.

 

You've raised some fair points, Larry, and I haven't said that I would never go digital. But I think my concerns have some validity. I also have a few others that I didn't mention in my previous replies. One of them is that I don't have the money that I feel like I should tie up in something like that. I probably could pull it off, and I'm not picky about buying used equipment as long as it's not used up. A vendor like KEH could probably be used for something like that. But money is money, and I try to be smart with it. I don't see that a DSLR, used or new, is a smart purchase right now.

 

On top of that, think about the lenses. We all know that the statement that any Nikon lens will work on any Nikon camera is a myth. While I can use my grandfather's old AI lenses on my F90X, a few features are non-functional. With the newer DSLRs, they require a different set of glass entirely to fully take advantage of what they'll do. And that's where some serious cheddar can come in. It's almost like razors and blades...

 

But please also keep the following in mind: I didn't come here to be told that I needed to change over to digital in order to get the images that I want for this particular situation. I came here to find out how to use what I have to best get what I want. Telling me to go digital isn't really all that helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you use film, you don't need to go to high ISO.

 

Here's a balloon in Kodachrome 64, back when

[ATTACH=full]1312699[/ATTACH]

 

Kodachrome was pretty picky about light conditions, wasn't it? I only got to shoot one roll before processing was discontinued. My pics turned out decent.

 

How did you do this, and were you shooting at night?

 

This comes back to wanting to use a film like Ektar 100 that offers bright colors without a high amount of grain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess it was dusk, rather than night. The balloon was being inflated. Like all slide films of the day, there was very little latitude. I was probably going for saturation and shooting at EI 80

 

If I were shooting film today, I'd use Ektar 100

 

Ambient Light

Salina-Balloon-Meet-09.jpg.d687f6cb3cb167fdf819b6d565e94a74.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I found this:

Film Review: Kodak Ektar 100 by Night – On Film Only

 

The forth pic is what I'm talking about. The sign might be brighter and whiter than a glowing balloon, but the principle is the same. Photographer said he exposed for the highlights, which I'm gonna guess means that he metered on the sign. So, the sign dominates the photo, but the dark areas of the pic weren't ruined. There are still some details.

 

All the pics were taken in low light using Ektar 100 in low light. Some of them may lean a bit toward cyan, but they all have appeal.

 

This shows that it can be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I confess it was dusk, rather than night. The balloon was being inflated. Like all slide films of the day, there was very little latitude. I was probably going for saturation and shooting at EI 80

 

If I were shooting film today, I'd use Ektar 100

 

Ambient Light

[ATTACH=full]1312707[/ATTACH]

 

So, you used Kodachrome 64 and underexposed it a bit by shooting it at 80. Did you have it processed like it had been pushed?

 

Lomography - The Beauty of Ektar Pushed + 2 Stops

This lady uses some toy cameras with Ektar 100, and shoots quite a bit of it pushed to 400 along with having it processed accordingly. Most of the images look good, and she got what I thought were some great after dark results doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No pushing, the point was to notch up saturation, so underexposure of that slide film was the cat's meow (did I really just say that, OMG!)

 

For Color Negative, frankly, pushing or pulling processing is a waste of time. Film latitude can cover that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You've raised some fair points, Larry, and I haven't said that I would never go digital. But I think my concerns have some validity. I also have a few others that I didn't mention in my previous replies. One of them is that I don't have the money that I feel like I should tie up in something like that. I probably could pull it off, and I'm not picky about buying used equipment as long as it's not used up. A vendor like KEH could probably be used for something like that. But money is money, and I try to be smart with it. I don't see that a DSLR, used or new, is a smart purchase right now.

 

On top of that, think about the lenses. We all know that the statement that any Nikon lens will work on any Nikon camera is a myth. While I can use my grandfather's old AI lenses on my F90X, a few features are non-functional. With the newer DSLRs, they require a different set of glass entirely to fully take advantage of what they'll do. And that's where some serious cheddar can come in. It's almost like razors and blades...

 

But please also keep the following in mind: I didn't come here to be told that I needed to change over to digital in order to get the images that I want for this particular situation. I came here to find out how to use what I have to best get what I want. Telling me to go digital isn't really all that helpful.

 

You're right. It was an "off topic" post, but I think you should really consider going digital. The advantages for just what you are concerned about are real.

 

JDMvW has your "film" answer. I totally agree with that advice for film, but ....... think about digital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. It was an "off topic" post, but I think you should really consider going digital. The advantages for just what you are concerned about are real.

 

JDMvW has your "film" answer. I totally agree with that advice for film, but ....... think about digital.

 

I didn't mean to come off like I was losing my cool. You're correct in that I should probably be thinking about the next step, Larry. KEH had a couple of good used D800s in their inventory, and for someone like me, that would be a logical option. But like I said, not yet.

 

Part of the problem I had was that I posted a similar query on another photo-related forum. There was no sign that it was exclusively film or digital. Just the typical forum where people are talking about projects, photos, their gear, asking questions, sharing tips etc. The lone response I received was along the lines of, "Well, I've never done that before, you might have better luck with digital, and find some photographer who's done something like what you're talking about and ask them." I was like, why do you think I'm here...

 

I appreciate the advice I've received here. It appears that I can take a risk and use Ektar 100 pushed for slight underexposure, f11 on my lens, aperture priority for the most part, and don't forget a tripod. I went ahead and ordered a few rolls of the film and what appeared to be a nice cross-body camera strap. Neck straps get to feeling really heavy really fast.

 

Hopefully I can get some low-light practice in before the big event, and no harm in normal day practice either since we have a car show locally this weekend.

 

Thank you again,

-William

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat amused when I see people talking bout using (large) 35mm format as opposed to smaller formats. At one time 35mm cameras were considered miniature cameras. That ~1.5 x 1 inch size has to be blown up 80 times in area to get an 8x10 inch print. If one is worried about loss of quality from using even smaller than full frame one should get larger format, 4x5 negatives that only have to be blown up 4 times in area to get an 8x10 inch print. Or even medium format. Using anything smaller is settling for convenience rather than quality.
  • Like 1
James G. Dainis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . Next month, a hot air balloon festival is taking place in my city at one of our parks by the river. From what I've read so far, they're not publicizing any early morning launches or flights, but are highlighting the 4pm til 11pm timeframe, with emphasis on the balloon glow that will take place as the sun's going down . . . The problem is figuring out what film to use. . . .

 

What is your final product?

 

A negative or positive that will be scanned?

Or a negative or positive that will be enlarged by darkroom enlargement and wet processing?

 

WW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am somewhat amused when I see people talking bout using (large) 35mm format as opposed to smaller formats. At one time 35mm cameras were considered miniature cameras. That ~1.5 x 1 inch size has to be blown up 80 times in area to get an 8x10 inch print. If one is worried about loss of quality from using even smaller than full frame one should get larger format, 4x5 negatives that only have to be blown up 4 times in area to get an 8x10 inch print. Or even medium format. Using anything smaller is settling for convenience rather than quality.

 

I know that a wall-sized poster blow-up is beyond the capability of 35mm, at least with a level of clarity that most people would find acceptable. That wasn't something I was planning to do, though being able to get a good image that's larger than the 3x5 prints supplied by the local photo lab doesn't seem unreasonable. Most of us here probably understand 35mm's limitations but also appreciate its predictability and ease of use.

 

Once again, my questions here are about being able to get what I want with the equipment I have available to me at the present time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is your final product?

 

A negative or positive that will be scanned?

Or a negative or positive that will be enlarged by darkroom enlargement and wet processing?

 

WW

 

I don't have access at present to wet processing and darkroom equipment, so it'll have to be choice #1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for answering.

 

. . . a hot air balloon festival . . . highlighting the 4pm til 11pm timeframe, with emphasis on the balloon glow that will take place as the sun's going down . . . I don't know much about the best color film for low light and after dark. The problem is figuring out what film to use. Should I go straight to an ISO 800 color film, or use ISO 400 and push it to 800? Or neither? I wish I thought Ektar 100 would work because its color can be so rich, but it can be so picky in low light. I really want to get the best colors and keep the sky dark without having excessive grain.

 

From what I've read so far, it might be best to take my Nikon F90X camera and use a zoom lens.

I don't have access at present to wet processing and darkroom equipment, so [i’ll be scanning the negative/positive and printing digitally].

 

If it is the “Balloon Glow” that you’re after then the ‘exposure’ will be for that, i.e. ‘the balloons’ which will of themselves be relatively bright – thus the comment “but it [Ektar 100] can be so picky in low light” is irrelevant – as you also mentioned you want the night sky to be dark.

 

As you’ll be scanning the negative, the question of “I really want to get the best colors” is also basically null and void, provided that you get well exposed negatives and you have or you have access to someone with good Digital Post Production skills.

 

Regarding choice of gear:

I’d take what you have in fast lenses (large aperture).

 

Regarding choice of Film:

If you choose Ektar 100 then I think you’ll be pulling around 1/15s at F/2.8 at ISO100, or slower, for balloons at night. A test run and/or research into the exposure parameters (i.e. the Shutter Speeds necessary) would be what I would be doing.

The results of this research would be the basis for my choice of Film Speed.

 

I see much sense in basing the Film Speed choice on the indicative typical Shutter Speed that you’ll be using and your skills and experience at using those shutter speeds.

 

As an indicative - I’d like to be pulling around 1/30 the 1/60 at the slowest Shutter Speeds, preferably I'd like to be at about 1/125s ~ 1/250s, faster if such were possible.

 

I'll always wear a little Film Grain (or Digital Noise), to keep the Image free of Movement Blur.

 

Noted your Zoom Lenses are not the fastest, nor are they at (relative to more modern Zoom Lenses), fantastic IQ when used wide open.

 

WW

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not an easy project at night. Getting as close to the balloons as you can would make it less harrowing, using 150mm lens with your F90X on shutter priority no slower than 30th/sec and on a tripod. 100 ASA is a bit slow but I would be game to try it, however I would use the new Kodak Ektachrome E100 and get it processed by a reputable lab.

 

Negative film at night is fraught with danger unless everything is absolutely perfect. To minimize to danger, the neg film needs to be a fresh film, designed for low light conditions, 400ASA for dusk, 800ASA for darker situations. Fuji Pro 400H or equivalent might be worth a try for the 400ASA

 

If you shoot manually, and your spot meter still works ok in your F90X, meter on the nearest balloon. I think spot metering will be key to getting the type of shots you want, correctly exposed balloons with dark surrounds. Fast shutter speed is essential though. Slow speeds plus camera movement can ruin every shot on the film, it's not worth the risk. So as William Michael said, base your film speed on a sensible shutter speed for low light and to save ruining your shots

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...